Very generally, I would be more concerned about securing the right of things like assembly, privacy from public and private institutions, security of communication and telecommunications, as well as guaranteed access thereto, and open borders that let people freely choose to patronize the sovereign of their choice without undo burden. Also, not endowing the state with a large standing military. .

I'm sure I'm not the first person to present you with the theory that the dual freedoms of (and from) force and information depend on each other, and just as un-checked control of information can make force powerless, so too can un-checked control of force make information powerless. But I don't see it addressed in your outlook. Even putting artificial limits on the size of the military doesn't take away the fact that they would still be the only game in town.

Our society is typified by checks and balances, in the always popular car analogy both a gas AND a brake. This is for good reason. You can't expect a system to work if it's designed to slow down simply by taking your foot off the gas pedal.

So, you can make a law to ensure that the "general citizenry" will be around to "check the power" of government.

Where is this law?

Not sure if serious...

Quote:

I don't think any government, Federal, State or local has made a law saying that you can "check" the power of it's agents, and if so, it's generally assumed as your right to competent defense whenever the state accuses you of anything.

Permission is not given to "check" the power. But ability is given. Do you understand the difference?

Quote:

If a cop tickets you for speeding, and you mount a defense that shows he used a defective or improperly calibrated radar gun, and you win, then guess what? You don't have to shoot the cop. You won.

If on the other hand, you shoot the cop as soon as he approaches your driver side window, then you are a cop killer and a murderer.

Who's checking who here?

There are 3 possibilities, and you covered the first 2: neither side is dishonest, or the civilians are dishonest. What if the establishment is dishonest?

By giving civilians the ability (but not the permission) to defend their rights by force, the establishment shows a commitment to staying honest. They create a system in which both sides are strongly incentivized to do what they're supposed to do, and if they don't then the consequences are dire. And of course by giving powers to the state, the civilians make a similar commitment to stay honest, with their own dire consequences for deviating.

You had better not exercise this ability to check government power, not unless the alternative is worse than ending your life as you know it, because that's exactly what will happen, whether you win or lose. But what if the alternative actually is worse?

I think we've gone through this before, but I'd constitutionalize an expanded version of posse commitus.

I don't know if I get your implication. If that is supposed to be in the tyranny discussion, isn't it kind of like one of those laws about making ski-masks illegal? Like it won't stop them if that is their intent, it will just make them break more laws in order to do it.

Look, 3 square, what do you suggest, having a Rebel Army standing by? We had that scenario once before, with regimental divisions deployed across a countryside that was vastly different than it is today.

Even individual Americans armed with military-style assault rifles could hardly pose any serious resistance to any future tyrannical central government supported by overwhelmingly powerful military capabilities.

Yep, nowadays, even Barney Fife of Mayberry is fully SWAT capable, and if he is not a sniper, he can give the green light to one for the head shot that takes you out and guarantees you a place on the cable news for a while, or on YouTube in heavy viral rotation in perpetuity.

Why do you get so defensive when anyone posts news of a shooting in this thread?

For fucks sake, if another Sandy Hook massacre occured you lot would probably jump on me for posting an 'appeal to emotion'.

edit: Unless that wasn't the reason for your post, in which case it's just a massive non sequitur.

Chicago has one of the strictest firearms laws in the US.

Thanks for proving that legislation is pointless?

Do we have to do this again?

Yes, you have to support the things you bring up. Do you even think before you post?

Gun traces shows that many guns used for crime in states/locales with strict regulations tend to be trafficked in from areas with more relaxed regulations. Though purchase limits (such as 1 gun per month) in the more relaxed states has shown decreases in the trafficking endpoints like NY and Chicago. This is an argument in favor of stronger federal regulations if the goal is to reduce availability of weapons to criminals.

I don't know if I get your implication. If that is supposed to be in the tyranny discussion, isn't it kind of like one of those laws about making ski-masks illegal? Like it won't stop them if that is their intent, it will just make them break more laws in order to do it.

Although a determined tyrant will bypass any law, I don't see constitutional protections as useless. If nothing else they provide a framework with which to criticize the aggrandizement of power.

Frankly our best bet is to keep illiberal, authoritarian minded, brutes out of the military. But we've done a spectacularly bad job of that. We instead have military men who will assassinate American citizens without qualm but threaten to commit sedition rather than register their personal weapons if a law requiring such was passed.

All the rest of the things you list add complexity which can be a problem. My XD has most of what you've listed, but I've been told over and over again not to trust any of them.

The Gun is always loaded.

Never point it at anything you aren't willing to destroy.

Then it shouldn't be a big deal to ensure that all do have acceptable drop test performance.

Not sure why adding complexity is a reason not to implement standards on newly manufactured firearms. All sorts of potentially dangerous commodities are regulated in the US, including requirements that add complexity to the product. I don't see why firearms should be an exception.

As for the latter half of the post, I think it is obvious that many gun owners do not follow these rules. This is part of the reason the items I suggest are needed. Just look at the 5 reported accidental shootings at gun shows on "Gun Appreciation Day".

Approximately 30 people are accidentally shot each day, with about 2 or 3 dying. Estimated that 13 require serious treatment at a hospital. Better training on firearm handling is one possible policy solution but it does not preclude other policy options, such as the aforementioned safety standards. Just because we have "Buckle Up/Click it or Ticket" campaigns does not mean we get rid of airbags in cars.

None of the features you listed, other than drop safety, are actually useful safety features.

Loaded chamber indicators are no substitute for proper safety handling. There is no evidence they do any good. People who ignore the 4 rules ignore the little red dot. They are not free, from an engineering point of view. Something mechanical has to touch the bullet. In at least one design, that's caused the gun to fire when impacted on the loaded chamber indicator, resulting in a loss of safety. I fail to see why the market shouldn't decide this feature, as there is no science backing it up. It's only backed up by "common sense" by people who don't actually like or use guns.

Magazine disconnect "safeties" are also not actually a safety enhancements. They don't serve as a replacement for the 4 rules, again. There is no science backing them up, again. They *do* prevent you from firing when you need to, which *is* backed up by actual evidence. The military explicitly forbid them from eligibility for the next service pistol for this reason. There is no justification whatsoever for legally mandating them.

Given your positions in this thread, you'll forgive me if I don't have any faith that your intentions in mandating those "features" have anything to do with the safety of gun owners.

Do you also hold the position that there is no justification for legally mandating safety regulations on any commodity whatsoever? Be them lawn mowers, chainsaws, teddy bears, or toy guns? Airbag design came under intense scrutiny in the 90s because 6 children per year were killed by them. That amount pales compared to accidental gun deaths among children yet you claim guns should not be improved? See also improvements made to soccer goals (1 death per year) and car trunks (2 deaths per year).

Quote:

There is no evidence they do any good. ... I fail to see why the market shouldn't decide this feature, as there is no science backing it up.

This seems to be a constant theme among gun rights advocates, that better training (even mandatory training inserted into the school curriculum) negates any reason to pursue other legitimate policies to reduce gun violence, even though we see plenty of examples that even well trained people are still victims of accidents.

Quote:

Given your positions in this thread, you'll forgive me if I don't have any faith that your intentions in mandating those "features" have anything to do with the safety of gun owners.

Maybe I should then assume that you are advocating for more childhood deaths based on your position in this thread.

I think setting these minimum safety standards does not require removing all existing firearms from society. Just like any other product that has new regulations imposed (like cars with better fuel economy requirements) old items need not be forcibly removed.

As for the claims on cost or difficulty? Cost hasn't stopped improving countless other mass produced commodities. I see no reason firearms should be different. Difficulty? Ridiculous, there are plenty of very smart and talented people who love their guns and can produce compliant designs if required. In nearly every market society (through government regulation) sets minimum standards. The firearm market is not special, but it has been treated as such for far too long. I can't actually think of any mass produced commodity that has fewer federal safety regulations on the design and manufacture than firearms. Toy guns are more regulated than real guns.

I don't know if I get your implication. If that is supposed to be in the tyranny discussion, isn't it kind of like one of those laws about making ski-masks illegal? Like it won't stop them if that is their intent, it will just make them break more laws in order to do it.

Although a determined tyrant will bypass any law, I don't see constitutional protections as useless. If nothing else they provide a framework with which to criticize the aggrandizement of power.

Frankly our best bet is to keep illiberal, authoritarian minded, brutes out of the military. But we've done a spectacularly bad job of that. We instead have military men who will assassinate American citizens without qualm but threaten to commit sedition rather than register their personal weapons if a law requiring such was passed.

Yep. I often wonder if this is just a natural consequence of a professional military. At the very least, mandated national service would make it much harder for politicians to go to war.

Loaded chamber indicators are no substitute for proper safety handling. There is no evidence they do any good. People who ignore the 4 rules ignore the little red dot.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that safety features can just lead to people taking stupid risks, and there are some pretty compelling studies on how drivers drive less carefuly after safety features such as seatbelts, ABS and ESC become standard.

Pont wrote:

They are not free, from an engineering point of view. Something mechanical has to touch the bullet. In at least one design, that's caused the gun to fire when impacted on the loaded chamber indicator, resulting in a loss of safety.

What the hell did they do, put the indicator behind the firing pin?

Pont wrote:

I fail to see why the market shouldn't decide this feature, as there is no science backing it up. It's only backed up by "common sense" by people who don't actually like or use guns.

People don't assign value to safety features unless they actually think they'll need them. Given that people also absolutely suck at assessing risk, this leads to a situation where the free market absolutely is not the solution to the problem.

Given that ownership records were maintained, is a record of ownership that contains manufacturer and model (though no serialized identifier) constitutional? Even serial numbers are recorded in the database (trigger word!) for machine guns, et al. It has never been upheld as unconstitutional.

Do you also hold the position that there is no justification for legally mandating safety regulations on any commodity whatsoever?

No, I don't hold that position.

Just because you name something a safety feature doesn't make it so. I don't think there's a need to legally mandate drop safety, because the market has covered that pretty well already. Loaded chamber indicators and magazine disconnect interlocks have not proven themselves to be safety-improving features. I wouldn't mind owning a P99, despite the fact that it has an LCI, but no way should they be mandated.

.Darien wrote:

What the hell did they do, put the indicator behind the firing pin?

It was .22 rimfire. Crush rim = boom. A mechanical loaded chamber indicator means there is something touching the bullet. Best case scenario, the gun is harder to disassemble and reassemble for cleaning.

The gun market has introduced tons of safety features. Actual safety is a very desirable feature on a firearm. It's no coincidence that it's states like California mandating these so-called safety features instead of pro-gun states. It's simply an excuse to ban as many guns as possible.

PsionEdge wrote:

Your claims here are nonsense:

Those citations are all pure speculation and are worth no more than my speculation. You'll notice that they're all cautious "may" statements from "health professionals", not gun experts. They're based on the idea that people who claimed they didn't realize the gun was loaded would have seen the indicator, realized danger, and decided not to handle the weapon irresponsibly. Having actually used weapons with LCIs, I can tell you they are no good for that purpose. The "danger" look of a gun is any time the slide or cylinder are closed, which is a far more visible indicator that the gun is in a dangerous condition than a little red dot. Anyone who can ignore that can ignore the red dot. Anyone who doesn't know enough about guns to look for the slide being open isn't going to magically just understand that the red dot means there's a bullet in it. You can verify this by taking any first-timer to the range and handing them a gun with an LCI.

Magazine disconnect interlocks may save a life or two, I'll admit. Some people are just retarded about cleaning their guns. But they also cost lives when guns fail to fire when needed (which many gun control advocates seem to have no sympathy for).

Why should we listen to self-proclaimed "gun experts" on the topic of public health epidemics? Gun violence is just one of many. Anyways, you claim there is no science in the recommendations. That is obviously false. (Unless you think statistical evaluation is not science.)!? [Please don't try to argue this, I thought you've been pretty reasonable so far]

Quote:

Magazine disconnect interlocks may save a life or two, I'll admit. Some people are just retarded about cleaning their guns.

I am happy to see you admit the recommended standards could save lives.

Quote:

But they also cost lives when guns fail to fire when needed.

Do you have a citation here? Please explain if it is for a drop tested gun, one that is a result of one of the following: magazine safety, trigger pull requirement, palm plate safety, LCI, or common safety design (which no one has singled out yet, curious). One in civilian ownership. It is shown the military has access to weapons the public does not.

Quote:

Just because you name something a safety feature doesn't make it so.

I didn't just decide to conjur these features. The idea of such features has been around for decades or in some cases back to the beginning of the 20th century. That various public health researchers have produced evidence that they can likely produce a measurable effect on unintentional gun injuries isn't just my whim. Maybe we will see more information coming if the research is allowed. But so far I find it convincing that they would be a beneficial effect, especially among unintentional gun deaths for children (18 and under).

Quote:

I don't think there's a need to legally mandate drop safety, because the market has covered that pretty well already.

Can you produce any drop safety data? If the market has proved this, surely the data will set us free.

I think this is textbook ad hom. They are not reliable because they focus on public health, not guns.

Quote:

Having actually used weapons with LCIs, I can tell you they are no good for that purpose. I can tell you they are no good for that purpose.

You counter generalized scientific studies with anecdotal evidence.

Quote:

The "danger" look of a gun is any time the slide or cylinder are closed, which is a far more visible indicator that the gun is in a dangerous condition than a little red dot. Anyone who can ignore that can ignore the red dot. Anyone who doesn't know enough about guns to look for the slide being open isn't going to magically just understand that the red dot means there's a bullet in it. You can verify this by taking any first-timer to the range and handing them a gun with an LCI.

Again more dismissing of all other policy actions because "more training" is the preferred answer. No other commodity regulation in the country works like this. Firearms are not an exception. They should be regulated like everything else. Can anyone present a reason firearms should be free from such scrutiny?

Quote:

The gun market has introduced tons of safety features. Actual safety is a very desirable feature on a firearm.

I would love to see a list of all safety features introduced by the market. Of course it will be all of them because there is no federal safety regulation on the design of firearms. Still, thousands of people from being accidentally killed by firearms each year.

The "danger" look of a gun is any time the slide or cylinder are closed,

This. Exactly this.

The Loaded chamber indicator is the bolt being closed. EVERY GUN IS ALWAYS LOADED. Relying on a mechanical dohick to substitute for good gunhandling practice is a recipe for trouble. Anything that contributes to laziness of gunowners is a net negative, IMO.

As explained above, the fact that suppliers could acquire guns so easily is a byproduct of the state’s lax laws. Illinois does not license or regulate gun dealers, require gun registration, limit the number of guns that can be sold at one time, or require background checks on private sales that aren’t conducted at gun shows. Chicago law doesn’t fill in all of these gaps. As a consequence, crooked firearm retailers have very little problem distributing their guns to dealers and police have fewer tools to deal with intermediaries who sell guns privately without background checks.

So, the above is a quote from the thinkprogress article that .Darien posted. This article is not being honest, and tries to paint a picture of a bunch of shadowy gun brokers selling machine guns out of trucks.

Gun sales are regulated by the BATF. That's a federal agency. By federal law, every gun sold through a dealer in the United States requires:

* The dealer holds a federal firearms license* The sale be logged in Form 4473, kept on file for 20 years, and sale record available to the BATF at any time* The sale is subject to the NICS background check of the individual buying the gun* If a gun dealer sells or buys *any* gun for himself as a private transaction, the sale *must* be recorded in a "bound book", inspect-able by the BATF at any time.

I can tell you that the penalties for breaking these federal laws are severe. Gun dealers aren't chomping at the bit to sell to Johnny Crackhead down the street - these guys don't want to sell a gun that ends up in the wrong hands - that's not a good situation for them. Dealer inventory is tracked, so it's not like they can funnel guns silently into nowhere.

So, the idea of a network of "crooked firearms retailers" is a fantasy cooked up to sell more gun control. I am sure that there are "straw purchasers" that buy guns for prohibited individuals, but I can't believe that those people last long before they're caught, and the penalty for straw purchasing single gun for a prohibited person is a 10-year stretch. Multiple gun sales to a single individual are reported to the BATF, so a straw purchaser that supplied a lot of guns at once would be picked up right away. In fact, I might add that the attempted gun sales to Mexican drug cartels were reported to the BATF *by the dealers themseles*, who were told to go ahead with the sales so the BATF could supposedly track where the guns ended up.

According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid `time to crime' of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged

...ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes. They conclude that these licensed retailers are part of a block of rogue entrepreneurs tempted by the big profits of gun trafficking

Recognizing that the ATF couldn't credibly call water wet in some circles, some amount of reporting and analysis of data is more compelling than the naive view that criminals are always dissuaded by harsh penalties.

They are not free, from an engineering point of view. Something mechanical has to touch the bullet. In at least one design, that's caused the gun to fire when impacted on the loaded chamber indicator, resulting in a loss of safety.

What the hell did they do, put the indicator behind the firing pin?

IIRC the model Pont is referring to, in which the loaded chamber indicator could actually cause a discharge, was a 22LR pistol. Being a rimfire cartridge, rather than centerfire, probably had something to do with it.

MightySpoon wrote:

Be that as it may, the data indicates that harsh federal penalties may not be a deterrent.

Again, another article which is trying to paint legitimate dealers as the problem, but which then goes on to admit that the guns:

* Are stolen from FFL holders (23,775 guns have been reported lost, missing or stolen from FFLs since September 13, 1994, according to the article)* Are purchased in "straw" transactions* The article doesn't provide the numbers of legally-purchased guns that were stolen, then used in criminal activity. The only number they give is the guns that were *reported* stolen. That's not the same thing at all.

The article speculates on, but provides no numbers on the number of guns illegally transferred by legitimate dealers. If the BATF wants the numbers, all they have to do is go ask for the records - FFL holders *must* provide them.

Quote:

ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,

So which is it? 10%? 15%? What's the exact number? The ATF isn't being honest here.